EV Digest 6435
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) craigs list scooter for the flats or hills if you weigh under 140 pounds.
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) RE: At what cd (drag coef) and roof size for a van would the drag
of the vehicle be less than the electricity generating rate of
pv's on the roof?
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: EV digest 6432
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: NiMH Batteries (was Re: Introductions)
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: EV digest 6427
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: NiMH Batteries (was Re: Introductions)
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: EV digest 6434
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
8) Off Topic Biodiesel (was Re: First post)
by "Tom Shay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: At what cd (drag coef) and roof size for a van would the drag of
the vehicle be less than the electricity generating rate of pv's on the
roof?
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Brake Pressure Multiplier?
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) RE: Brake Pressure Multiplier?
by "Dave Davidson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) RE: FreedomEV Competition - or just more hype?
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: EV digest 6434
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
14) First eBox Delivered to Tom Hanks
by "Roy LeMeur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: NiMH Batteries (was Re: Introductions)
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: NiMH Batteries (was Re: Introductions)
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: NiMH Batteries (was Re: Introductions)
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: FreedomEV Competition - or just more hype?
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: At what cd (drag coef) and roof size for a van would the drag of
the vehicle be less than the electricity generating rate of pv's on the
roof?
by Steve Condie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: EV digest 6434
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/mcy/279392274.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> let's be generous and say that we get 100W out of every 2ft length of van.
> To get 20 kW it will need to be 400 ft long.
> That is why you don't see a car run forever on a freeway on solar panels
> alone.
And that of course assumes that a 400 ft long van doesn't weight any more
or have any extra drag. I came up with closer to 800 feet, then again I
started with the Sprinter's frontal area (about 50% more than an S10)
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
From: csilver
> assuming money was no object, could you build a vehicle from
> scratch out of titanium or carbon fibre in order for it to be lightweight
> enough to make a difference? Or will something 6'x15'x6' (WxLxH)
> still be too big to go anywhere faster than a snail?
Well, you can certainly do a lot better than normal production vehicles!
A small light car (Geo Metro, VW Golf) needs around 15 hp (250 watthours per
mile) to drive at 60 mph . A small pickup or minivan (Chevy S-10, VW Microbus)
is more like 21 hp (350 wh/mi). A full-size van like the Sprinter is higher
yet; perhaps 27 hp (450 wh/mi).
If you convert an existing vehicle, the sort of tweaking and adjustments people
can do themselves (low rolling resistance tires, aerodynamic modifications,
alignment, lighter oils, fix dragging brakes, etc.) can improve on these by
20-30%.
If you build a vehicle from scratch, there are many more things you can do.
People have built vehicles that use about half the above amounts of power. For
example, the GM EV1 was as low as 160 wh/mi, and the Solectria Sunrise I'm
working on got down to 120 wh/mi.
Special "no holds barred" vehicles can get even lower. The solar race cars are
around 20 wh/mi; the Swiss Twike is 40 wh/mi. These tend to be ultra-light
ultra-streamlined ultra-efficient vehicles that are very far from normal.
If you are "up" for a big project, it is possible to build an ultra-light,
ultra-streamlined, ultra-efficient vehicle that is big enough to live/camp in.
It would probably look like the Ultravan, or Buckminster Fuller's Dymaxion car
(scaled to whatever size you needed). Be aware that you would be exploring
largely uncharted areas; most people have no experience in this, so their
advice is likely to be mostly "noise".
If you want something you can do right now, on a budget, with limited skills
and resources, you might look for one of the old postal step-vans that have
been the subject of EV conversions. Candidates include a Grumman postal van (an
all-aluminum van with a VW front end and engine), Commuter Vehicles ComutaVan
("stretched" Citicar) , Battronic Minivan, or AM General Electruck (postal
jeep).
These are old vehicles that can be found broken and cheap, and restored/rebuilt
into a vehicle to suit your needs/taste. For example, I bought a ComutaVan,
fixed it up, and used it as my daily driver for 7 years.
--
Lee Hart
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Right but has the EAA ever tried to enter into
> discussions with Chevron over releasing the patent
> rights?
They won't (they're an Oil company remember) In fact they sued (and won)
Panasonic when Panasonic tried making EV size NiMH because it violated
their license with Cobasys which SPECIFICALLY states that they can NOT
make EV size batteries. In fact I believe the words Electric Vehicle are
in the licensing agreement.
> Mark
>
>
>
> --- Robert Lemke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Because Chevron Oil now owns the patent rights for
>> NiMH batteries of the size of 10 a/hr and larger.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> Mark Freidberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why can't the EAA hire some fundraiser(s), rake in
>> the
>> cash, initialize an EV-size NIMH production
>> facility,
>> and sell to members at an affordable price? How hard
>> can it be?
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> --- Lee Hart wrote:
>>
>> > Ian Hooper wrote:
>> > > Interesting about the Cobasys/Chevron
>> > relationship, why am I not
>> > > surprised!?
>> > >
>> > > There are a few Chinese manufacturers of large
>> > capacity NiMHs, e.g
>> > > http://nthaiyang.en.alibaba.com/. They are
>> pretty
>> > expensive though, I
>> > > got quoted US$153ea for 1.2V, 80Ah (600A peak
>> > discharge) cells, so it's
>> > > heading towards $20K for a ~10kWh pack! Ouch.
>> > >
>> > > The option I'm currently looking at are Sub-Cs,
>> > due to their high
>> > > discharge rate (>10C). Manufacturer direct,
>> > they're about US$1.50 each
>> > > for 1.2v 3.5Ah, I'll need about 2500 of them for
>> > 10kWh. So twice the
>> > > price of the best lead acid, but half the weight
>> > and hopefully longer
>> > > cycle life. Using that many individual cells
>> seems
>> > silly, but it has
>> > > been done before, e.g the Tesla Roadster, or
>> White
>> > Lightning
>> >
>> > Lots of people are trying to use hundreds to
>> > thousands of small cells
>> > to make an EV sized battery pack. There are lots
>> of
>> > problems! Frankly,
>> > I'm pessimistic -- NO ONE has any long-term
>> > experience yet. I think it
>> > works in the short term, but will prove
>> impractical
>> > in the long run (too
>> > expensive, too unreliable). But, time will tell!
>> > --
>> > Ring the bells that still can ring
>> > Forget the perfect offering
>> > There is a crack in everything
>> > That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
>> > --
>> > Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377,
>> > leeahart_at_earthlink.net
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>> Do you Yahoo!?
>> Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail
>> beta.
>> http://new.mail.yahoo.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
> with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
>
>
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Somewhere between 30,000 and 50,000 would be my guess.
> How many watts at the electric motor to power the sprinter or ultravan
> at 65 or 70 mph?
>
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 9:50 pm, Peter VanDerWal wrote:
>> Not to mention the difficulty in finding one for sale. I mean they
>> made
>> less than 400 of them and that was almost 40 years ago.
>>
>>>
>>> The Ultravan is *taller* inside than the Sprinter, despite the lower
>>> overall height. This is because it has no frame; it is a monocoque,
>>> like
>>> an airplane or unibody car.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is pretty wide. It's a motorhome, after all; meant to live in
>>> more
>>> than to be driven. But did you look at a picture of one? They are
>>> probably
>>> the most streamlined motorhome ever built, with a Cd better than most
>>> cars.
>>>
>>> Again, this is just a curiosity; not a realistic choice.
>>> --
>>> Lee Hart
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
>> junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do
>> whatever I
>> wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
>> legalistic signature is void.
>
> www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming
> and the melting poles.
>
> www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
>
>
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Easy, China is notorious for violating patents.
Now try importing these batteries to the US. You /might/ get lucky and
get one set in.
> http://www.powerstream.com/Ni-Prism.htm
>
> has NiMH cells with capacities from 12 to 100 AH. How do they get around
> Chevron's patent?
>
> Bruce
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Lemke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:45 PM
> Subject: Re: NiMH Batteries (was Re: Introductions)
>
>
>> Because Chevron Oil now owns the patent rights for NiMH batteries of the
> size of 10 a/hr and larger.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> Mark Freidberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why can't the EAA hire some fundraiser(s), rake in the
>> cash, initialize an EV-size NIMH production facility,
>> and sell to members at an affordable price? How hard
>> can it be?
>>
>> Mark
>
>
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I agree. I want to do EV; I just have to figure out how to do it
within my current budget–at least enough to last me until the lithium
prices come down. But in the meantime, I'll have no choice but to use
biodiesel as a stopgap, as it's the only alternative I can stomach
between now and then. I have a couple ideas up my sleeve; but I'm not
going to tell anyone about them because people who "think different"
tend to face endless ridicule from those who insist things can only
be done the way they always have been.
On Feb 17, 2007, at 3:50 PM, Electric Vehicle Discussion List wrote:
Best of luck. A new bio-diesel thread has been started on
http://evmechanic.net/evchatportal/index.php I suspect there will be
some starter discussion threads posted soon. I think after you
consider
the long term possibilities, electric is the only way to go. With
advances in either battery or electric motor (or both) technology the
consumer will begin to recognize the virtues of electricity over
traditional fuels.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Please, let's not start talking about biodiesel here. It's an interesting
subject
but far off topic.
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: First post
Crystal,
There are alot of great resources on the web regarding bio-diesel. The
website http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html has alot of good
information. Making bio-diesel is very easy. Using it in an existing
diesel engine is no different than that of fossil fuel diesel. Does it
smell different, yes. Will your car "wreak"? No different than it does
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Actually I am thinking more along the lines of a low acceleration
constant speed 65 70 mph type performance which was why I specifically
set that speed requirement there.
And the goal is too see if we can have a long enough vehicle to get that
much sunlight to make it happen from the roof shine alone with no
batteries so it stays very light.
Or at least at what speed it is practical.
Now we all know the sunracers are small in length but that is because
the race has length of vehicle restrictions.
And the metrobus is trying to move a big old bus a few miles a day.
So this project idea is something different.
A lightweight long van type idea to see if there is some reasonable
highway speed that can be maintained for a low cd van type vehicle
without batteries (so weight is low) in near full sunshine.
Would it have to be 20 ft long and hinged in the middle?
My guess would be a 30 hp engine running a peak (so 30 hp) would move an
aerodynamic van on level ground at 65 with bad acceleration which is
fine. Frankly maybe even less power is required (and it is power not
energy because the time is instantaneous)
Using your conversion 746watts =1 hp then say
22,000 watts at the wheel motors (no tranny to save mechanical losses.
Or maybe it could be a limo with a long body and lower height for even
less aerodynamic resistance.
Anyway at some point you reach a length that will will because roof area
increases much faster than drag when you lengthen a vehicle. Hinging it
in the middle if necessary would be a drag because there would be more
wheel rolling resistance and joint aerodrag but still each section
should add to power more than take away with drag.
I just want to get to that magic length for a van or a limo so the thing
could rol on level ground endlessly during sunny days..
Call it the solar wanderer or camper. The perfect long range low
operating cost cross country touring vehicle with sleeping space.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 1:59 pm, Steve Condie wrote:
Well, there are a lot of erroneous assumptions in this analysis, as I'm
sure regulars here will have spotted.
Doug Weathers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: OK, let's see if I've got
these calculations down correctly.
On Feb 16, 2007, at 11:04 PM, GWMobile wrote:
How much energy does it take to make the ultra vane or the other one
everyone is talking about to go 65 or 70 mph?
You're asking about power, not energy, but never mind :) Power is
energy divided by time.
Watts and horsepower are both measurements of power. Since they're
measuring the same thing, they can be converted into each other, like
Fahrenheit and Celsius degrees of temperature.
In this case, 746 watts = 1 hp.
So to get an idea of how many watts are required to move a given
vehicle, look at the hp requirement to move the vehicle and multiply by
746.
Uh - no. This is true in theory, but not in practice.
The standard engine 2005 Dodge Sprinter has a 154 hp engine, .
Therefore, an EV version of the Sprinter that has the same performance
as the gas version would need a powerplant that can produce 115
kilowatts.
Not really. ICE's are "peaky". An electric motor can achieve
"the same performance" in practice with a lower rating, because
of greater torque and a flatter power curve.
A Zilla 1K can produce 320 kilowatts, so this is doable.
The next thing you need to worry about, of course, is energy. For how
long can you produce this power from the battery pack? This translates
into range.
Energy is power multiplied by time, so we talk about kilowatt-hours
(abbreviated Kwh). To travel for one hour at the Sprinter's top speed
will require 115 Kwh. That's pretty outrageous - let's try restricting
top speed travel to half an hour, or 57.5 Kwh.
Well, I don't know where "the Sprinter's top speed" came from,
but maintaining speed at 65 or 70 mph will take less than 115Kw -
probably less than half that much.
A single US-145 battery can produce 6v at 75 amps for 154 minutes.
That's 6*75*154/60 or 1.2 Kwh.
However, that's running the battery all the way dead. It's recommended
that you don't exceed 50% discharge or you'll kill your batteries in
short order. So let's assume the battery contains .6 Kwh.
This means that you would need 57.5/.6 or 96 of these batteries. They
weigh 70 pounds apiece, so that's 6720 pounds of batteries. The
Sprinter can't carry that much weight!
These numbers are misleading, though - if your amp draw exceeds 75
amps, which it probably will since you're hauling so many pounds of
batteries, the energy you can get out the batteries will drop due to
something called Peukert's Effect. You probably should only count on
15 minutes of full-speed travel.
Practical experience (the late Red Beastie -
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/037.html ) has shown that freeway
speed in an unaerodynamic vehicle can be maintained for an hour
with less than half that weight in batteries.
You should definitely not travel at full speed if you want any kind of
range at all.
So that's your starting point. You can lower power requirements by
reducing your performance requirements, but you're on your own there.
I understand that there are various pieces of software that can help
determine hp requirements for race cars - perhaps one of those could be
used to get a more precise number.
--
Doug Weathers
Las Cruces, NM, USA
http://www.gdunge.com/
---------------------------------
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming
and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Most trains and buses and double trailer trucks have brakes that are
"on" unless the air pressure holds them "off" thus in case of an air
pressure failure the trailer or back of the train slows the vehicle to a
stop preventing jackknifing.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 1:59 pm, Mike Chancey wrote:
Dave wrote:
Just for the record, this is not the way air brakes work. Only the
emergency/parking brake is applied by a spring being held back by
air. The service brakes use air pressure to apply the brakes just
like cars use hydraulic fluid. In the event of an air loss so the
service brakes are useless (just like breaking a brake line in a car),
the spring is released and applies the emergency brakes. They are
either full on or full off. The spring brake can also be applied by
hand during an emergency or for parking.
Actually, some air brake systems do use the air to hold off the brakes
and springs to apply it. I had a 1955 Kenworth-Pacific school bus
fitted out this way. When it broke down and had to be towed the driver
hooked up the lines and when to pull away and it wouldn't move and
actually stalled the Peterbuilt wreaker. He looked at me and asked
"spring-air brakes?" When I said yes he re hooked the lines and the
brakes released allowing the bus to be towed. I belive this was a
required standard on school busses to prevent runaways in case of brake
failure.
Thanks,
Mike Chancey,
'88 Civic EV
Kansas City, Missouri
EV Photo Album at: http://evalbum.com
My Electric Car at: http://www.geocities.com/electric_honda
Mid-America EAA chapter at: http://maeaa.org
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming
and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Mike,
That's only for the emergency/parking brakes. They are activated by springs
and held off by air pressure. If your air pressure drops below about 25
psi, they apply automatically. When your bus broke down, you didn't have
air to hold the springs off and the emergency brakes applied. By the way,
this is on the rear axle only. Your service brakes (the ones actuated by
the brake pedal) use air to APPLY the brakes. Without air pressure, your
service brakes won't work. That's why the emergency brakes are applied by
springs when you lose air pressure. When you pull the knob to activate the
parking brakes, you're just letting air out of the brake system and the
springs apply the emergency/parking brakes.
By the way, new school busses are still built the same way. Motorcoaches
used to be built that way (I have a 1974 MCI 8 that uses the same system),
but the newer ones with disc brakes use a different system.
Dave
From: Mike Chancey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: RE: Brake Pressure Multiplier?
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 13:52:00 -0600
Dave wrote:
Just for the record, this is not the way air brakes work. Only the
emergency/parking brake is applied by a spring being held back by air.
The service brakes use air pressure to apply the brakes just like cars use
hydraulic fluid. In the event of an air loss so the service brakes are
useless (just like breaking a brake line in a car), the spring is released
and applies the emergency brakes. They are either full on or full off.
The spring brake can also be applied by hand during an emergency or for
parking.
Actually, some air brake systems do use the air to hold off the brakes and
springs to apply it. I had a 1955 Kenworth-Pacific school bus fitted out
this way. When it broke down and had to be towed the driver hooked up the
lines and when to pull away and it wouldn't move and actually stalled the
Peterbuilt wreaker. He looked at me and asked "spring-air brakes?" When I
said yes he re hooked the lines and the brakes released allowing the bus to
be towed. I belive this was a required standard on school busses to
prevent runaways in case of brake failure.
Thanks,
Mike Chancey,
'88 Civic EV
Kansas City, Missouri
EV Photo Album at: http://evalbum.com
My Electric Car at: http://www.geocities.com/electric_honda
Mid-America EAA chapter at: http://maeaa.org
_________________________________________________________________
Want a degree but can't afford to quit? Top school degrees online - in as
fast as 1 year
http://forms.nextag.com/goto.jsp?url=/serv/main/buyer/education.jsp?doSearch=n&tm=y&search=education_text_links_88_h288c&s=4079&p=5116
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
An overview I found here:
http://www.tonyfoale.com/gallery/Trike/index.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rod Hower
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 8:10 AM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: FreedomEV Competition - or just more hype?
Ebfield
Are you sure this is spelled correctly?
I couldn't find anything close on google (or google images).
Thanks,
Rod
--- jerryd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Don and All,
>
>
> >From: "Don Cameron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
> >Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 2:15 PM
> >Subject: FreedomEV Competition - or just more hype?
> >
> >
> >> http://www.flytheroad.com/
>
> Neat unit but as far as competition, I'm not worried ;^D
> I agree with it's methods, design as I was planning on doing a
> narrow vehicle MOL like it so if sucessful saves me from doing that. I
> own 2 Honda Gyro's that use the same tilting principles and they are
> the best handling, braking narrow MC's I've ever ridden but that also
> makes me wonder just what Carver has patented. Ebfield also made one.
> At least it's not as ugly as the Carver was.
> It's a completely different market than the Freedom EV and not
> anywhere near as safe and doesn't have side by side seating which will
> probably doom it in the US for real high mass production.
> And they will have a very hard time building it for that
> price. It will need better aero if they want the range they say on
> batteries at that price if even then.
>
> Jerry Dycus
> >>
> >>
> >> Don Cameron, Victoria, BC, Canada
> >>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Cool, this is very helpful. I'm now looking to figure out how to
either find or build a vehicle with the greatest ratio between weight
and volume (lightest weight but biggest size) while keeping it
structurally sound and road worthy. This is both an environmental and
a utilitarian endeavor for me, as well as freedom; it's not about
showing off anything or trying to make the neighbors jealous, but
given my visual background in art and design, I will make sure it's
aesthetically pleasing when I get done with it; I'm just not willing
to pay what it costs to buy something ready-made.
On Feb 17, 2007, at 3:50 PM, Electric Vehicle Discussion List wrote:
This means that you would need 57.5/.6 or 96 of these batteries. They
weigh 70 pounds apiece, so that's 6720 pounds of batteries. The
Sprinter can't carry that much weight!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If this has already been posted I didn't see it-
http://www.acpropulsion.com/releases/02-15-2007.htm
~~~~~~
Roy LeMeur
_________________________________________________________________
Play Flexicon: the crossword game that feeds your brain. PLAY now for FREE.
http://zone.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmtagline
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
But this does not stop people from making the original patented
formulation which falls into public domain.
Lipitor just fell into public domain.
Do you think merck would have allowed it if there had been any way to
game the system?
Nimh batteries as originally patented will fall into public domain 17
yrs after the origianl patent date which probably is only 5 or 10 yrs
away. Then anyone will be able to make them without paying royalties or
getting permission.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 2:00 pm, Lee Hart wrote:
From: Kenneth Dove
This is definitely NOT the case as concerns pharmaceuticals. Patents
expire after 17 years.
With pharmaceuticals, it appears the favorite method is to reformulate
the drug slightly, and patent it again.
--
Lee Hart
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming
and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'd love to see the lawsuit and the licensing agreement.
If it specifically restricts electric vehicles I'd like to send it to
some congress members and activists.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 2:24 pm, Peter VanDerWal wrote:
Right but has the EAA ever tried to enter into
discussions with Chevron over releasing the patent
rights?
They won't (they're an Oil company remember) In fact they sued (and
won)
Panasonic when Panasonic tried making EV size NiMH because it violated
their license with Cobasys which SPECIFICALLY states that they can NOT
make EV size batteries. In fact I believe the words Electric Vehicle
are
in the licensing agreement.
Mark
--- Robert Lemke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Because Chevron Oil now owns the patent rights for
NiMH batteries of the size of 10 a/hr and larger.
Bob
Mark Freidberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why can't the EAA hire some fundraiser(s), rake in
the
cash, initialize an EV-size NIMH production
facility,
and sell to members at an affordable price? How hard
can it be?
Mark
--- Lee Hart wrote:
> Ian Hooper wrote:
> > Interesting about the Cobasys/Chevron
> relationship, why am I not
> > surprised!?
> >
> > There are a few Chinese manufacturers of large
> capacity NiMHs, e.g
> > http://nthaiyang.en.alibaba.com/. They are
pretty
> expensive though, I
> > got quoted US$153ea for 1.2V, 80Ah (600A peak
> discharge) cells, so it's
> > heading towards $20K for a ~10kWh pack! Ouch.
> >
> > The option I'm currently looking at are Sub-Cs,
> due to their high
> > discharge rate (>10C). Manufacturer direct,
> they're about US$1.50 each
> > for 1.2v 3.5Ah, I'll need about 2500 of them for
> 10kWh. So twice the
> > price of the best lead acid, but half the weight
> and hopefully longer
> > cycle life. Using that many individual cells
seems
> silly, but it has
> > been done before, e.g the Tesla Roadster, or
White
> Lightning
>
> Lots of people are trying to use hundreds to
> thousands of small cells
> to make an EV sized battery pack. There are lots
of
> problems! Frankly,
> I'm pessimistic -- NO ONE has any long-term
> experience yet. I think it
> works in the short term, but will prove
impractical
> in the long run (too
> expensive, too unreliable). But, time will tell!
> --
> Ring the bells that still can ring
> Forget the perfect offering
> There is a crack in everything
> That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
> --
> Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377,
> leeahart_at_earthlink.net
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail
beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com
____________________________________________________________________________________
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do
whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming
and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
What you can get away with for personal use is always more than for
manufacturing.
Microsft was jsut sued for assembling us patented computer technology
offshore and then importing it here to avoid the us patent manufacturing
restriction. The patent holders sued them and I believe it is in court
and micorosoft is expected to lose.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 2:24 pm, Peter VanDerWal wrote:
Easy, China is notorious for violating patents.
Now try importing these batteries to the US. You /might/ get lucky and
get one set in.
http://www.powerstream.com/Ni-Prism.htm
has NiMH cells with capacities from 12 to 100 AH. How do they get
around
Chevron's patent?
Bruce
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Lemke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: NiMH Batteries (was Re: Introductions)
Because Chevron Oil now owns the patent rights for NiMH batteries of
the
size of 10 a/hr and larger.
Bob
Mark Freidberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why can't the EAA hire some fundraiser(s), rake in the
cash, initialize an EV-size NIMH production facility,
and sell to members at an affordable price? How hard
can it be?
Mark
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do
whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming
and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Remember there are design patents which only protect the specific look
and design but no underlying ideas and then there are utility patents
which are the real 17 yr patents that say protect the original idea of
say a tilting car which has probably long expired.
Hell since porosche was using electric hub motors in his earliest
vehicles before the vw bug and his first gas vehicles (he started as an
electrical engineer who built his dad's home power supply) I'll bet most
hub motor ideas are within the public domain.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 3:08 pm, Cor van de Water wrote:
An overview I found here:
http://www.tonyfoale.com/gallery/Trike/index.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rod Hower
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 8:10 AM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: FreedomEV Competition - or just more hype?
Ebfield
Are you sure this is spelled correctly?
I couldn't find anything close on google (or google images).
Thanks,
Rod
--- jerryd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Don and All,
>From: "Don Cameron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
>Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 2:15 PM
>Subject: FreedomEV Competition - or just more hype?
>
>
>> http://www.flytheroad.com/
Neat unit but as far as competition, I'm not worried ;^D
I agree with it's methods, design as I was planning on doing a
narrow vehicle MOL like it so if sucessful saves me from doing that. I
own 2 Honda Gyro's that use the same tilting principles and they are
the best handling, braking narrow MC's I've ever ridden but that also
makes me wonder just what Carver has patented. Ebfield also made one.
At least it's not as ugly as the Carver was.
It's a completely different market than the Freedom EV and not
anywhere near as safe and doesn't have side by side seating which will
probably doom it in the US for real high mass production.
And they will have a very hard time building it for that
price. It will need better aero if they want the range they say on
batteries at that price if even then.
Jerry Dycus
>>
>>
>> Don Cameron, Victoria, BC, Canada
>>
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming
and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
As a WAG I'd say your estimate of 30 HP to cruise at freeway speed in a vehicle
of this type is probably not far off. Conventional assumptions regarding
losses means that takes about 30 KW. Using the traditional 10 watt per square
foot rule of thumb for PV, that means 3,000 square feet of PV panels would be
needed. Several hundred feet in length looks about right...
GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Actually I am thinking more along the lines
of a low acceleration
constant speed 65 70 mph type performance which was why I specifically
set that speed requirement there.
And the goal is too see if we can have a long enough vehicle to get that
much sunlight to make it happen from the roof shine alone with no
batteries so it stays very light.
Or at least at what speed it is practical.
Now we all know the sunracers are small in length but that is because
the race has length of vehicle restrictions.
And the metrobus is trying to move a big old bus a few miles a day.
So this project idea is something different.
A lightweight long van type idea to see if there is some reasonable
highway speed that can be maintained for a low cd van type vehicle
without batteries (so weight is low) in near full sunshine.
Would it have to be 20 ft long and hinged in the middle?
My guess would be a 30 hp engine running a peak (so 30 hp) would move an
aerodynamic van on level ground at 65 with bad acceleration which is
fine. Frankly maybe even less power is required (and it is power not
energy because the time is instantaneous)
Using your conversion 746watts =1 hp then say
22,000 watts at the wheel motors (no tranny to save mechanical losses.
Or maybe it could be a limo with a long body and lower height for even
less aerodynamic resistance.
Anyway at some point you reach a length that will will because roof area
increases much faster than drag when you lengthen a vehicle. Hinging it
in the middle if necessary would be a drag because there would be more
wheel rolling resistance and joint aerodrag but still each section
should add to power more than take away with drag.
I just want to get to that magic length for a van or a limo so the thing
could rol on level ground endlessly during sunny days..
Call it the solar wanderer or camper. The perfect long range low
operating cost cross country touring vehicle with sleeping space.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 1:59 pm, Steve Condie wrote:
> Well, there are a lot of erroneous assumptions in this analysis, as I'm
> sure regulars here will have spotted.
>
> Doug Weathers wrote: OK, let's see if I've got
> these calculations down correctly.
>
> On Feb 16, 2007, at 11:04 PM, GWMobile wrote:
>
>> How much energy does it take to make the ultra vane or the other one
>> everyone is talking about to go 65 or 70 mph?
>
> You're asking about power, not energy, but never mind :) Power is
> energy divided by time.
>
> Watts and horsepower are both measurements of power. Since they're
> measuring the same thing, they can be converted into each other, like
> Fahrenheit and Celsius degrees of temperature.
>
> In this case, 746 watts = 1 hp.
>
> So to get an idea of how many watts are required to move a given
> vehicle, look at the hp requirement to move the vehicle and multiply by
> 746.
>
> Uh - no. This is true in theory, but not in practice.
>
> The standard engine 2005 Dodge Sprinter has a 154 hp engine, .
>
> Therefore, an EV version of the Sprinter that has the same performance
> as the gas version would need a powerplant that can produce 115
> kilowatts.
>
>>>>>> Not really. ICE's are "peaky". An electric motor can achieve
>>>>>> "the same performance" in practice with a lower rating, because
>>>>>> of greater torque and a flatter power curve.
>
> A Zilla 1K can produce 320 kilowatts, so this is doable.
>
> The next thing you need to worry about, of course, is energy. For how
> long can you produce this power from the battery pack? This translates
> into range.
>
> Energy is power multiplied by time, so we talk about kilowatt-hours
> (abbreviated Kwh). To travel for one hour at the Sprinter's top speed
> will require 115 Kwh. That's pretty outrageous - let's try restricting
> top speed travel to half an hour, or 57.5 Kwh.
>
>>>>>>> Well, I don't know where "the Sprinter's top speed" came from,
>>>>>>> but maintaining speed at 65 or 70 mph will take less than 115Kw -
>>>>>>> probably less than half that much.
>
> A single US-145 battery can produce 6v at 75 amps for 154 minutes.
> That's 6*75*154/60 or 1.2 Kwh.
>
> However, that's running the battery all the way dead. It's recommended
> that you don't exceed 50% discharge or you'll kill your batteries in
> short order. So let's assume the battery contains .6 Kwh.
>
> This means that you would need 57.5/.6 or 96 of these batteries. They
> weigh 70 pounds apiece, so that's 6720 pounds of batteries. The
> Sprinter can't carry that much weight!
>
> These numbers are misleading, though - if your amp draw exceeds 75
> amps, which it probably will since you're hauling so many pounds of
> batteries, the energy you can get out the batteries will drop due to
> something called Peukert's Effect. You probably should only count on
> 15 minutes of full-speed travel.
>
>>>>>> Practical experience (the late Red Beastie -
>>>>>> http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/037.html ) has shown that freeway
>>>>>> speed in an unaerodynamic vehicle can be maintained for an hour
>>>>>> with less than half that weight in batteries.
>
> You should definitely not travel at full speed if you want any kind of
> range at all.
>
> So that's your starting point. You can lower power requirements by
> reducing your performance requirements, but you're on your own there.
> I understand that there are various pieces of software that can help
> determine hp requirements for race cars - perhaps one of those could be
> used to get a more precise number.
>
>
> --
> Doug Weathers
> Las Cruces, NM, USA
> http://www.gdunge.com/
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
> in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming
and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
---------------------------------
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ok then, let's start thinking outside the box.
Firsth thing you need to do is start thinking smaller. Pehaps something
like an Ford Escort station wagon. Fill the back up with camping gear
(tents etc.), Yeah it will take a bit longer to setup camp, but are you in
a hurry? Worse case you can fold down the rear seat and sleep in the
back.
Better yet, build a small vehicle, light weight with good enough storage.
Figure out the minimal amount of gear you need to take and make the
vehicle just big eough to carry that and as many batteries as you can
stuff in it.
Perhaps start with the frame from a late 80's 1 ton toyota pickup (these
were actually quite small. If you build a low profile, light weight body,
this will allow you to carry 1 ton of batteries.
That should get you 120-150 miles range as long as you don't drive to
fast. Farther if you drive at say 30 mph.
If you are recharging from solar, then you won't be able to drive that far
every day, parhaps once a week.
Or maybe go even smaller, and carry less gear. Think backpacking. Build
something like this:
http://www.blueskydsn.com/BugE_Concept.html
but a bit bigger so you can carry perhaps 10-12 bateries instead of only
4, and your dogs of course.
This is close to your budget too.
How athletic are you? Even a couch potato can produce 70-100 watts while
pedaling. Make a pedal powered generator and pedal it while writing or
possibly even while driving. The nice thing about this is you can produce
power even at night.
3 hours of pedaling should easily provide you with 200-300 watts, twice
that if you are in excellent shape. That's enough to charge about one
battery. At 120W solar panel can produce at least that much in a day if
you have good sunlight.
Your first question was why are EVs so small, the reason is it costs too
much to make them big. If you don't have a lot of money, think small.
> Cool, this is very helpful. I'm now looking to figure out how to
> either find or build a vehicle with the greatest ratio between weight
> and volume (lightest weight but biggest size) while keeping it
> structurally sound and road worthy. This is both an environmental and
> a utilitarian endeavor for me, as well as freedom; it's not about
> showing off anything or trying to make the neighbors jealous, but
> given my visual background in art and design, I will make sure it's
> aesthetically pleasing when I get done with it; I'm just not willing
> to pay what it costs to buy something ready-made.
>
>
> On Feb 17, 2007, at 3:50 PM, Electric Vehicle Discussion List wrote:
>
>> This means that you would need 57.5/.6 or 96 of these batteries. They
>> weigh 70 pounds apiece, so that's 6720 pounds of batteries. The
>> Sprinter can't carry that much weight!
>
>
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
